Historum - History Forums  

Go Back   Historum - History Forums > World History Forum > General History
Register Forums Blogs Social Groups Mark Forums Read

General History General History Forum - General history questions and discussions


Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
Old October 2nd, 2016, 03:12 PM   #1

dreuxeng's Avatar
Historian
 
Joined: Sep 2015
From: England
Posts: 1,041
The League of Nations


Key League of Nations official and lawyer W E Rappard, 'believed international collaboration could assuage national antagonisms; he thought "native peoples" should be governed in their own interests and not those of the imperial powers...he was no anti-imperialist. Few Western liberals, in 1921 were. He did not think the occupied areas ready for self-government; the language of civilisational stages, of "backward" peoples and Western guidance, fell easily from his lips. And he was an internationalist. A year in post had cost him some illusions, but it had not dented his beliefs. And importantly, that year had taught him much. By nature an open-hearted and outspoken man, he had acquired caution, diplomacy, and a measure of guile.'

'The Mandates Commission, Rappard was certain, could be the tool through which the imperial order would transformed. It was impossible to overestimate the importance of their work. The Commission marked the beginning of an epoch in Colonial history'.

The League of Nations was a multi-national organisation one of whose goals was to subject imperial rule to international control ??!

As a structural and legal objective that sounds entirely reasonable, but limited nonetheless to the shared mandated areas. And those areas only; and that is a key reason why the history of the League of Nations is for many an obscure tangent in 20th century history.

The obvious reply is that the United Nations superseded the League following WWII, but that cannot mean that a recent period in history has been rendered semi-irrelevant.
dreuxeng is offline  
Remove Ads
Old October 3rd, 2016, 12:28 PM   #2

AlpinLuke's Avatar
Knight-errant
 
Joined: Oct 2011
From: Lago Maggiore, Italy
Posts: 20,090
Blog Entries: 19

The difference between the League of Nations and UN is that UN enjoys the presence of the nuclear deterrent which makes it substantially impossible to see an other world war.

UN is not better or more effective than the League of Nations. Simply a global war would mean a too high risk of a wide usage of nuclear weapons and that wouldn't be manageable.
AlpinLuke is offline  
Old October 3rd, 2016, 12:49 PM   #3

Rodger's Avatar
Historian
 
Joined: Jun 2014
From: US
Posts: 3,329

Just finished reading a book about the League's role in the free city of Gdansk. As I understand, it was not very effective. Decisions regarding the city and its neighbor still had a subjective nature to them and, on some level, Poland disregarded what they considered to be unfair rulings. In the end, Gdansk became the rallying cry and the starting point for WW 2. That means the League had failed its main objective in less than 20 years.

Last edited by Rodger; October 3rd, 2016 at 12:51 PM.
Rodger is offline  
Old October 3rd, 2016, 12:56 PM   #4

AlpinLuke's Avatar
Knight-errant
 
Joined: Oct 2011
From: Lago Maggiore, Italy
Posts: 20,090
Blog Entries: 19

The League of Nations looked for a sustainable equilibrium among the colonial powers. This meant that it was unsuitable to deal with the matter of fact that a great arising power [Germany] didn't enjoy a colonial empire. Furthermore, it cared a nut about the freedom of the colonized lands and their populations [despite what the League declared ...].
AlpinLuke is offline  
Old October 3rd, 2016, 01:46 PM   #5

dreuxeng's Avatar
Historian
 
Joined: Sep 2015
From: England
Posts: 1,041

Yes, i heard that the broad idea about the League was that it was ineffective and failed to achieve very much, in the end; but that this is a biased viewpoint, merely repeated by enough prominent people to allow it to be accepted as a likely fact.

In recent years i have read in publications like History Today that the Leagues lack of success has been over stated, and that one of the key reasons it was unable to achieve as much as it might have, was because the U.S.A. decided not to engage with and lend so much support to the League.
dreuxeng is offline  
Old October 3rd, 2016, 01:51 PM   #6

dreuxeng's Avatar
Historian
 
Joined: Sep 2015
From: England
Posts: 1,041

'To grasp why the League mattered, we must begin in Geneva...For what was new and transformative about the mandates system was not the rhetoric of the civilising mission, which all imperial powers employed...what was new was the apparatus and level of international diplomacy, publicity, and 'talk' that the system brought into being.'
dreuxeng is offline  
Old October 3rd, 2016, 01:53 PM   #7

AlpinLuke's Avatar
Knight-errant
 
Joined: Oct 2011
From: Lago Maggiore, Italy
Posts: 20,090
Blog Entries: 19
US and not the British Empire?


Quote:
Originally Posted by dreuxeng View Post
Yes, i heard that the broad idea about the League was that it was ineffective and failed to achieve very much, in the end; but that this is a biased viewpoint, merely repeated by enough prominent people to allow it to be accepted as a likely fact.

In recent years i have read in publications like History Today that the Leagues lack of success has been over stated, and that one of the key reasons it was unable to achieve as much as it might have, was because the U.S.A. decided not to engage with and lend so much support to the League.
It may be, anyway I would underline that in the age of the League of Nations the main world power still was the British Empire, not the United States.

Today it's not that politically useful to remind the problems generated by the British Empire and it's better to accuse the US of that time to have played the role of the "bad guy" or of the "mindless bully". But history is history.

The United States weren't in a condition to ensure the success of the League of Nations.
AlpinLuke is offline  
Old October 3rd, 2016, 02:01 PM   #8

dreuxeng's Avatar
Historian
 
Joined: Sep 2015
From: England
Posts: 1,041

America 'never formally joined' the League of Nations project: an attempt to augment internationalisation, via the first ever multi-national world organisation (an 'ostensible parliament of the world').

Last edited by dreuxeng; October 3rd, 2016 at 02:05 PM.
dreuxeng is offline  
Old October 3rd, 2016, 02:02 PM   #9

dreuxeng's Avatar
Historian
 
Joined: Sep 2015
From: England
Posts: 1,041

Quote:
Originally Posted by AlpinLuke View Post
It may be, anyway I would underline that in the age of the League of Nations the main world power still was the British Empire, not the United States.
The U.S. economy was already bigger than Englands' by 1900.
dreuxeng is offline  
Old October 3rd, 2016, 02:03 PM   #10

AlpinLuke's Avatar
Knight-errant
 
Joined: Oct 2011
From: Lago Maggiore, Italy
Posts: 20,090
Blog Entries: 19

Quote:
Originally Posted by dreuxeng View Post
America 'never formally joined' the project that attempted to augment internationalisation, via the first ever multi-national world organisation (an 'ostensible parliament of the world').
Still today Washington tends not to pay [or to pay on delay] the contributions to UN.

The problem is simple: it's not a problem ... a country will always defend its interest. If an international organization doesn't defend your interests ... why should you finance it?
AlpinLuke is offline  
Reply

  Historum > World History Forum > General History

Tags
league, nations



Thread Tools
Display Modes


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
If the U.S joined the League of Nations Hadrian Speculative History 2 March 26th, 2014 01:05 PM
Is the United Nations just as big of a fail as the League of Nations Was? PinkPanter456 General History 49 April 10th, 2013 05:42 AM
League of Nations IKE52 American History 3 January 23rd, 2013 06:51 PM
League of Nations vs. UN crossroadclarence General History 12 October 24th, 2009 08:10 AM
US & the League of Nations Fromage American History 4 February 4th, 2007 06:00 PM

Copyright © 2006-2013 Historum. All rights reserved.